Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Not saying fraud can't exist, and that cutting edge research doesn't sometimes not work out (which really isn't fraud). You said 97%. I don't see anything about 97% in that article.

 

Cherry pick much? Misrepresent much?

This is the lead in

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)17334-0/fulltext

As you can see the editor of the Lancet is taking issue with the assumptions underpinning this book

 

Nothing is free. Changing how we do thins that will help the planet would not be free either. That is just reality. If some think that the option of doing nothing is a viable or realistic one, they might want to do a rethink......and see the bigger picture.

 

Oh lucky me.

You suggest that the media aren't scientists so those results are not relevant, then you follow that to get the actual science, you have to read IPCC reports that are also interpretations by non-scientists.

The IPCC is staffed by UN and WMO wonks that preach to their acolytes for money.

The entire basic premise of the IPCC's "safe zone" of 1.5C alone is ridiculous. The Earth has been far hotter than that, and the greatest diversity of flora and fauna on Earth occurred during those periods of much higher heat. The "runaway greenhouse" based on 1.5C is ridiculously dumb on it's face.

They suggest that "we have to protect our forests". Nothing protects forests and encourages a huge surge in plant life than higher temps and more CO2 in the atmosphere.

What are their suggestions?

1. Create and expand protected areas (e.g. national parks) — and don’t roll them back.
2. Support Indigenous peoples to have their traditional lands legally titled to them — there are no better stewards of healthy high-carbon ecosystems, and here’s why. (Oh, also — it’s their land anyway.)
3. Support farmers, ranchers and loggers with incentives, training and regulations to better manage their lands. Most of these land stewards want to do the right thing, but they need help doing it.
4. Demonstrate the value of the benefits that nature provides, thus encouraging people to take better care of it.
5. Make carbon markets work better to protect forests, which can reduce carbon that is emitted elsewhere.

1. Yeah great.
2. Yeah if indigenous people aren't on their land the land spews more carbon and stuff. Logic.
3. Support farmers. Yeah we don't support them already.
4. Frolic through the flowers. Bold strategy.
5. Give us your money.

What an excellent report for those that can't think for themselves.

 

Oh bravo. Well played.

Lets see if you can explain in your own words how your cherry picking negates the paragraphs I linked.

You should have read this part of your own cherry picking.

Judson thinks that fraud is common because it is the inevitable product of the current culture of science. Fraud, he says, is intrinsic in institutional cultures that are “characterized by secrecy, privilege, lack of accountability”. Scientists have won exactly such a privileged place in society by presenting themselves as altruistic seekers of truth whose method will invariably ferret out not only truth, but also fraud. “The grandees of the scientific establishment”, writes Judson, “regularly proclaim that scientific fraud is vanishingly rare and that perpetrators are isolated individuals who act out of a twisted psychopathology”.

 

Where are most solar panels and windmills built, and what energy source is used to produce them.

 

That was a tongue in cheek reference to the "97% consensus" fraud.

 

Yep read it and noticed the qualifier “thinks”

What Judson is obviously ignorant about are the safeguards built into the system to pick up on fraud or in the case of poor research (and there is a lot more of that out there than out and out fraud) ways of reviewing the material to determine if it is valid or waste of broadband.

STEP ONE - Peer review process. If done well this should filter the crap
STEP TWO - critiquing research. This is taught at an honours or masters level in universities. Certainly in health care it is a vital skill and taught at nearly every level.
STEP THREE - systematic reviews and meta analysis. This is where a group set out to find an answer to a question by reviewing all the research already done and critiquing the validity of methodology and outcomes

There are more safeguard and steps but these are the core

 

???

 

The manufacturing process should never be used as an argument. All manufacturing has ecological overhead whether it be wind turbines, any type of car, solar panels, oil rigs, steel making, etc.

The important question is, once manufactured, what type of ecological overhead exists? In the case of solar panels, they just sit there and do there thing for well over 20 years. Getting electricity from non-renewable sources often requires constant polluting, release of CO2, and the disposal/storage of hazardous wastes.

In the case of EVs vs ICEs, once manufactured, they can be a wash - one may burn oil and the other may burn coal. However, if EVs are powered by renewables, that's a win-win.

 

Want to critique the papers that is based on?

 

They forget there is also an environmental impact to coal




And a very human cost

 

New?

 

First of all, you MUST know because I have told you before. China owns the most clean energy patents, produces the most clean energy equipment, exports far more than any other country and installs massive amounts in China.

We do not compete in clean energy technology. Germany is a distant number 2.

The same energy is used for manufacturing this technology as is used to manufacture other technology.

The difference is that this technology displaces fossil fuel plants with clean energy production. And, clean energy production is far cheaper for us to install, leading to LOWER electricity bills. (With the exception of Nuclear, which is hideously expensive to install and produces hugely expensive electricity.)

Did you really not know this?

 

but the climate was coping with the amounts back then as it would now, that's what Net Zero is about.
But certainly you are right peat bogs are the biggest absorbers of co2 per square metre and many in the UK are being recreated. This has two good effects where its practical, 1, Co2 recapture 2, The slowing of run off, particularly relevant in the UK where much flood plain is built on or farmed

Ok wondered why you mentioned it. Anyway historically demand for thatch fell away as slate became the roofing material of choice.

I totally disagree. The burning of fossil fuels to clear the fens did not lead to increases in atmospheric Co2. That tipping point happened much later. Population growth is by far the biggest driver of increased Co2. In 1840 the UK population was 18m, its now 72m.
All those people heating their homes and work places. And using power in a way unimaginable in 1840 Britain or 2024 Bangladesh.

We live in this world, not yesterdays. So yes we do want to do something if possible to stop the flooding of the fens.
If the Sioux reappeared and took your land would you give it up willingly on the basis that historically it was theirs in the first place?

But it is the case. The fens were happily drained and managed for hundreds of years, meandering shallow rivers narrowed, flood plains reduced and all was well.
Increased Co2 is warming the planet and changing our weather. We have two choices, cut emissions or keep adapting. Both the draining of the fens and the filling the air with Co2 are human enterprises so we need to stop one or accept the collapse of the other.

Fairness is a human trait that lead us instead of lions to be the masters of this planet, to disregard it is IMO a dangerous path.
With regards to climate change, yes there would be winners and losers. Tundra becoming farmland while ski companies go bankrupt.
If this were a natural and gradual process taking thousands of years there would be no problem, but its very rapid and the cost in human lives from displacement and collapse of economies is not acceptable. The lowering of living standards even in wealthy 1st world countries needed to pay for the changes in climate would also break many who only live day to day as it is.
And why? So you or I don't have to pay for the changes needed to stop it happening?

If it were just the fens I would have no argument to offer.

I repeat, if it were just the fens, but they were an example only.

Yeah, if we allow the fens to flood again and move all the people who live there out, then we allow the rivers to re-widen and re-house all the people who live in the towns and cities along their banks. Then we can keep burning fossil fuels for a few more decades.
Heck we could do the same with the Mississippi and ship out the people of Louisiana at no cost to you of course, I mean they chose to live in an area below sea level so if climate change displaces them who's fault is that. And hopefully Nebraska will get away with it for a while longer at least.
Or we could all muck in and switch from filling the air with ****.

 

Including those in China apparently.
And none write to Shell or Exxon asking for a grant?
Peabody don't offer to fund this "research"
Dear oh dear.

 

Yes.
According to a new study (Kato and Rose, 2024), absorbed shortwave irradiance has been increasing since 2000 at a rate of +0.68 W/m² per decade. This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time.”

This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean,” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate (0.68 W/m² versus 0.6 W/m²).



Image Source: Kato and Rose, 2024
CERES data indicated a +0.66 W/m² per decade−1 (+1.3 W/m²) increase in absorbed solar radiation during the 21st century (March 2000 to March 2020) per a 2022 study (Stephens et al.).

It was determined the net absorption of solar energy that has occurred due to the reduction of solar radiation reflected to space by clouds and aerosols is “by far the largest contribution to the increasing rate of change of EEI.”



Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022

 

I am open to evidence emissions from agricultural practices prior to 1840 did not affect climate or increase atmospheric greenhouses gas concentrations. As usual I can produce evidence agricultural activities DID increase atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses and influence climate. It began about 7000 years ago actually. Your opinion could be correct, but I’m compelled to go with peer reviewed research on this one as well.

Absolutely. Effective and fast mitigation of the problem. How long will it take to stop flooding of fens in UK by going net zero carbon?

I mentioned it because at the time the fens were drained thatch was a product in demand and had value similar to the food crops that replaced it in the fens. I’m not suggesting we grow thatch there now.

So CO2 from coal burning that started in the 1840’s to pump out fens didn’t end up in the atmosphere? Where did it go? Is there some magical carbon sink that sucks up all fossil fuels emissions used to create fens but rejects fossil fuels used in the same period to manufacture and transport? Same with all the diesel fuel used when it replaced coal as fuel to pump the fens? It is sequestered somewhere but diesel from a lorry isn’t?

Or is there no magical selection process for what carbon is sequestered and what ends up in the atmosphere? Perhaps fossil fuels used to pump fens does end up in the atmosphere, it just doesn’t have a greenhouse effect like fossil fuels used for heating or transportation.

I’m wide open to evidence either scenario above is the case. The “tipping” point occurred when? After 1840? Never heard that claim before. I’m open to evidence.

Are you also claiming emissions from fens past and present aren’t a function of population change? Another bold claim.

I would just demand Europe pay off the Sioux. Because the climate change Europe precipitated drove my ancestors here to displace the Sioux. That’s fair, right?

No. Your opinions conflict with historical facts. I suggest you read this. It’s a pretty comprehensive historical account.

https://britishheritage.com/travel/britains-sinking-lands-exploring-fens.amp

You have some fantastical idea about the fens and their history that is not based on facts. They exist as they are today ONLY because of massive fossil fuel burning.

And they are well below sea level because of SUBSIDENCE, not climate change. I made a comment earlier. Here it is.

You have provided stellar evidence that statement of mine is true. You picked an example (UK fens) where the problem is nearly 100% the result of subsidence but people erroneously believe it’s AGW.

So the need for fairness exists only over short periods? When will Europe be off the hook for displacing the Sioux from the climate change they caused? Can you show me an example where CO2 driven
AGW is displacing and destroying economies? Not where a tiny percentage of a problem may be attributable to CO2! Not another example like fens or Bangladesh.

Are you aware costs of natural disasters as a percentage of GDP globally are falling?


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful...8.1540343?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378

It’s not just the fens where anthropogenic factors NOT related to CO2 are the cause of problems. The fens is just the example you chose. Another poster chose Bangladesh as an example. Neither of you were aware the problems people face in both areas are not driven by CO2, but by other human actions. If the fens had not been destroyed, they would actually sequester carbon as coal over time with sea level rise. Now they are emitting greenhouse gasses as well as requiring massive amounts of fossil fuels to keep them pumped out.

You don’t want to give the fens up to reduce greenhouse emissions. Others don’t want to give up ICE vehicles! You are right, it’s not just the fens. Everyone has their sacred cow they want to keep. For some it’s fens. For some it’s ICE vehicles. For others it’s airline travel. Or shrimp.

Again, it’s not just the fens. There is a misunderstanding amongst the public about the cause of all kinds of problems that are either unrelated to atmospheric CO2 or only impacted at a very minor scale from AGW. Flooding in Bangladesh. Fires in Australia and Hawaii. Unmanageable fens in the UK. As I said, nearly every major example folks present as caused by atmospheric CO2 isn't, or it isn’t a major factor—some other anthropogenic factor is the primary cause.

If the planet went net zero carbon emissions tomorrow, how long before the fens in the UK didn’t need pumped out? How long before the people in New Orleans aren’t in danger from flooding? How long until Bangladesh became a paradise without flooding or coastal incursion from the sea? Hint. The answer is NEVER.

You can address the CAUSES of the problems or not. I prefer addressing causes of problems, not things that didn’t cause the problem and CANNOT fix the problem.

Before 1840, 66% of the UK fens could not be kept dry! Not until fossil fuels were used could they be kept pumped out. You claim the tipping point came after 1840. So why were the fens flooded in 1840? Climate change? There is absolutely no logic to the argument the fens are threatened by climate change. They are threatened because humans did a stupid thing believing they were doing a smart thing. The unintended consequences of subsidence occurred only DECADES after attempted conversion to farmland. And the problem continues to get worse today. Because of subsidence.

I maintain we can’t make informed decisions about climate when we have such a flawed understanding of the examples used to influence public opinions.

Just a bit of trivia to close. Anthropogenic fossil fuel burning has resulted in net addition of coastal land masses globally.

 

Firstly why is this an image and not a link or the article itself.
Secondly what explanation do you give for the decrease in reflected energy. The obvious ones would be ice melt or changes in formation of cloud cover and the areas they form in. Both consistent with global warming.

 

My fault I should have said significantly or compared to today.

Well we are already having to take costly steps to increase pumping and add water storage, but these steps still rely on net zero to stop the climate warming further and costing even more and more.

Oh I see, just an interesting aside.
Its amazing that they had similar value considering the amount of crop produced in the fens. I guess their was a high demand for thatch and lower demand for food in 1840. Makes you wonder why they bothered with such an expensive exercise.
Assuming you are correct.

See my answer and graph above.
As regards my tipping point. The first study indicating the man made Co2 could warm the atmosphere was around 1900. But most people agree it became a serious issue around 1960.
As for population having an effect. I made precisely the opposite claim.
"Population growth is by far the biggest driver of increased Co2. In 1840 the UK population was 18m, its now 72m."
Of course population is the biggest driver, but the solution is not a cull.

So you wouldn't just accept that the land was there's and walk away?

Always happy to learn.

https://britishheritage.com/travel/britains-sinking-lands-exploring-fens.amp
Interesting article. I didn't feel it was that much at odds with what I thought. What in particular do you think I misunderstood.


You have some fantastical idea about the fens and their history that is not based on facts. They exist as they are today ONLY because of massive fossil fuel burning.

Where did you ever get the idea I said the fens were below sea level because of climate change? (I assume you mean current climate change?)

I do not think anyone thinks that excessive fenland flooding over the last few years is sea level rise. Its due to changing patterns in rainfall.
The fens have not subsided significantly in the last 5 years. You confuse centuries with decades with years.

Good point. I think Europe should withdraw all the white people it sent to the United states and their descendents.

I already agreed with you on that. But the systems Bangladesh had created mostly coped with the changes they had made, its climate change that has caused them to no longer cope.
Same with the fens. I'm not interested in what they were like in Roman times or even in the 17th century. They have been pretty stable and the systems have worked for over a 100 years. Now they are not.

No I wasn't, why is that?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful...8.1540343?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab
The article is vague and talks of sustainable development.
The figures quoted make no sense to me.
"This short analysis presents data on this indicator from 1990. In constant 2017 US dollars, both weather-related and non-weather related catastrophe losses have increased, with a 74% increase in the former and 182% increase in the latter since 1990. However, since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP"
This would imply GDP has risen more than 182% since 1990?
I'm sure I'm being dumb again.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378
From your link. I'm really confused.
"Natural hazards continue to cause increasing damage and loss of life. Natural disaster costs globally reached US$314 billion dollars in 2017, more than double the yearly average cost over 2007–2016 (CRED, 201."

I'll address more later, this is a very long post.

 

I was going off this.

You brought up net zero and “coping”. That went out the window 7000 years ago. I’ve never heard the claim CO2 emissions weren’t an issue until 1960. Emissions for 7000 years have had a cumulative effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. Anthropogenic CO2 began being an “issue” 7000 years ago. It’s effects were significant and have been for centuries—keeping us out of an ice age apparently.

I guess I don’t know what “coping” is. The global temp had been warming due to AGW for centuries. Net zero disappeared centuries ago.

Are you saying emission levels prior to 1960 were in balance and being coped with? Are you saying if warming got us to RCP 4.5 in twice the time as projected all would be well? Was rate of warming and rate of atmospheric CO2 increase up to 1960 insignificant and being coped with?

More than what? Increased pumping? Pumping increased a few decades after transitioning to crops. It was increasingly costly to pump fens with windmills prior to 1840. Pumping increased drastically in the 1800’s when fossil fuels became popular. Pumping has increased between 1840 and 1960 when you claim CO2 imbalance began. Pumping will increase whether we achieve net zero or not because subsidence increases the vertical distance needed to move water up to and above sea level. More area further inland requires pumping because relative sea level rise from subsidence is moving inland.

I’ll ask again. When will pumping stabilize or decrease through the direct action of CO2 net zero policies?

What caused flooding of the fens in 1852, 1872, 1880, 1910, 1911, 1915, 1947 and many other years before the tipping point of CO2 emissions in 1960? Same thing that causes flooding today. Subsidence.

Did you read the history cite I provided? Nobody claims thatch alone was equal to ag production after drainage. Aquatic sourced foods, thatch, fuel, etc. all had value.

It’s all in the historical account. The fens were drained for political reasons as much as anything. To enrich supporters of the crown and remove the fen dwellers that refused to pay taxes.

Well. Damn science anyway. If we hadn’t started studying the subject of greenhouse effects we NEVER would have had a problem.

I have no idea what became a serious issue in 1960. Never heard that claim. Temperature began to be driven up by AGW 7000 years ago. It accelerated drastically with advent of fossil fuel usage. Fossil fuel usage drove population increases and the snowball continues to roll, increasing in size.

Apparently I misread your statement on population. My apologies.

No. I would demand the UK and Spain etc. to be fair and make it right. They caused the climate change that is responsible. It’s their problem to fix.

I’ve never said you had to give up the fens anyway. Just pointed out they are to you what an ICE vehicle is to another. A sacred cow emitting greenhouse gasses you don’t want to give up. There are solutions to your problem you created in the fens. Net zero carbon emissions is not one of them.

Well, this statement for starters.

That conflicts with the historical record. After draining it took mere decades for subsidence to lower land below sea level and pumping had to commence. Flooding occurred routinely as soon as subsidence occurred. Pumping requirements increased over time. Massive amounts of greenhouse gasses were emitted (and had nothing to do with population, microorganisms that turn organic matter into gasses don’t know or care what the population is). Massive destructive floods occurred all throughout the 1800’s and 1900’s. And surely before official record keeping began as well.

You seem to believe fens need pumping and flood because of increased precipitation. This is not true. They only flood because of what is called relative sea level rise. They have flooded from relative sea level rise since a few decades after initial drainage. They have required increased pumping to remain dry because of continued relative sea level rise since a few decades after initial transition to farming.

Increased pumping is not new. Flooding is not new. Both have been occurring since long before your chosen date of significance 1960. Both have been occurring for hundreds of years.

If ya’ll hadn’t started trying to use the fens for agriculture they would never need pumping and would never flood as they have for centuries. Land that humans don’t intentionally sink below sea level doesn’t need constant pumping and flood control.

Subsidence is 1-2 cm per year.

https://lowlandpeat.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/Societal-Impacts-Report-March-2020.pdf

What’s significant? Most people are all torn up about a 4.2 mm/yr average global relative sea level rise. But 1-2 cm/year (5-10 cm over 5 years) of relative rise (100% from subsidence) isn’t significant to the UK?

Every mm difference between the soil surface in the fens and the current sea level requires more pumping. No matter what the atmospheric CO2 concentration is or what the temperature is or if we are at net zero emissions.

Just the white people? Hmmm.

Then we can all go back to Africa where we came from—-because of climate change.

Good plan. I’ll be watching for those tasked with rounding everyone up coming over the horizon. Where do you want to go when I’m returned to Europe? Sudan maybe?

What? Flooding is new to Bangladesh? Never heard that claim either.

Let’s look at precipitation during flood season in Bangladesh (summer mostly March through August).

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/bangladesh/climate-data-historical


Does it look like increased precipitation is responsible for flooding today in Bangladesh? Unlikely since there is LESS precipitation, not more compared to 1901-1930 (before the tipping point you chose of 1960).

Climate change destroyed coastal mangroves? The evidence points to shrimp farming etc., not climate change.

Well, since cost of natural disasters attributable to climate increased 74% and global GDP increased 280% over the same period, it all kind of makes sense, right? Even non climate related disasters like earthquakes increased only 182% compared to a 280% increase in GDP.

Climate disaster costs increase mainly because of population growth driven infrastructure building and concentration of that construction in areas most prone to disasters. Like areas humans intentionally lowered below sea level.

A lot of folks cite this blog post as evidence for increased cost to society. Counting numbers of disasters that cost a billion dollars or more. Only folks with no foundation in economics could fall for it.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...llar-weather-and-climate-disasters-historical

Someone started a thread on it here a while back.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...om-in-the-years-ahead.611892/#post-1074320952

But it’s a gimmick. Since real estate values have increased about 1600% since 1970 while inflation measured by CPI has only increased about 700%, there would not have to be any increase in disaster frequency to see “billion dollar” disasters increase by the amount in the OP.

Never mind population growth driving more structure and infrastructure construction over time.

 

Citation to the quoted parts of the IPCC please

 

Then you agree the draining of the fens in 1840 using fossil fuels had no significant effect on global warming. I would go further, if the slope remained the same today I would be saying let the world adjust to it as it changes.

The process was very slow for the first 7,000 years. Now it very rapid, that is the difference.

Coping IMO is the ability to cope with the rate of change. Where the cost of keeping up with change exceeds the cost of preventing it.

I assume you understand the importance of rate of change?

No I'm saying that was around the time it was bought to the public notice as a serious issue, because of the rate of change.

I can't say for certain, but on balance yes. I think the gradual rate 1950 to 1960 is one the world could adjust to.
I believe this in part because I believe renewables are part of our future with or without climate change, same with electric vehicles.
Just as ICE took over from steam.

Again. Rate of change.

It will increase it as you well know. But stopping pumping will not significantly reduce global warming whereas heating our homes and moving our vehicles using renewable electricity will.
And of course blindingly obviously. If the pumping is carried out using energy from wind turbines then there would be a net reduction in that effect to.
We could consider letting the fens flood to act as a carbon sink. I believe there are proposals for that in the offing.

30 year extreme events. But farmers are not complaining about the fens flooding, they are complaining about the amount of water the time it takes to clear it and what time of year it happens. Climate change.

Ah beg pardon. I skip read it, yours was a long post to address and I do have a life outside of here.

Yes I saw that bit, though this is of course one persons perspective. Others claim it was to open the area to farming and stop it being a hide out for thieves and cut throats. Not paying taxes has a romantic sound until you call it tax evasion.

Can't even remember what this is in answer to.
.

No probs. Its an argument I have seen others put forward many times, that population is not the cause of increased AGW.
So easy to assume that's what all greenies think.

Which is of course impossible. Therefore I conclude there is a time restraint on fairness. Probably that of a human life.
But we drifted off the point somewhat. Bangladesh changed its environment to better suit its population and had systems that coped with those changes. We (the west) chucked loads of Co2 into the atmosphere and risk raising sea levels and made their systems unable to cope.
Do we have any responsibility for that?

As far as I know us having the fens does not increase the cost of another having an ice vehicle. Whereas others having ice vehicles does increase the cost of us having the fens.
Net zero carbon is a solution for very many things beyond a tiny bit of the UK.
Have you with your analytical mind (Meant as a genuine compliment) thought about what happens if we do nothing about stopping co2 from its accelerating increase?
Does the planet get 5°C , 10 °C warmer 15, 20. Is there an upper end? Is there a point where you think its unsustainable.
Really interested in this.

 

The links to the articles (research papers, actually) are right there in the post. The images comply with fair use.
Global warming, yes. CO2-driven anthropogenic climate change, no.

 

Here, Jack pushes the "It's warming due to the sun" theory.

Which directly contradicts all of his other "It's really cooling!" posts.

That is, he's flinging everything at the wall, hoping something sticks. Like all of the deniers, his preconceived belief is that AGW theory has to be false, so he's cherrypicking in an attempt to support his preconceived belief.

Jack, if you want to have any credibility, you need to pick a single theory and stick with it.